3 ms·

Lots of politically charged comments on this discussion. If you disagree with NSF’s merit and broader impact review criteria, that’s fine and it’s important to

by rsfern 2y ago

Lots of politically charged comments on this discussion. If you disagree with NSF’s merit and broader impact review criteria, that’s fine and it’s important to have a healthy conversation about it, but I think it’s important to take a step back and thoughtfully address concrete ideas that are actually contained in the proposal review criteria. These are the kinds of issues at stake in terms of the broader impacts criteria: - Is it good that NSF promotes applications that include historically minority-serving institutions (as opposed to just the same few R1 universities)? - should NSF prioritize proposals with strong scientific outreach activities aimed at boosting engagement and opportunities in under-represented demographics? Keep in mind that NSF funding is extremely competitive. It’s not like subpar research is ubiquitously getting funded over better research with lower “broader impacts” scores. Successful proposals excel on both fronts.

Gabriel54 2y ago
1. There are thousands of universities in the US that are neither R1/R2 nor "historically minority serving". What about those universities? 2. Where did you get the idea that outreach is not still an important priority? The issue is what is euphemistically called "under-represented demographics" which we understand excludes many Americans on the basis of their race.
legolas2412 2y ago
> It’s not like subpar research is ubiquitously getting funded over better research with lower “broader impacts” scores. Yeah I don't buy that. I've seen equity directives in universities explicitly asking to hire only underrepresented minorities, or give one third of a candidate's score based on race and gender characteristics (the other two thirds were resume and interview). I've heard equity hiring quotas given to execs in tech industry. I've heard of pressure to hire/promote minorities. I've seen what affirmative action did to University admissions. The admissions office reduced Asian Americans score on "likeability". As a result they needed a higher sat score than any other group for admissions. The hiring office essentially said that they did not like Asians. So sorry, I do not buy the argument that equity initiatives just choose a minority representation from equally qualified samples. Because from what you say, Asian americans wouldn't have been discriminated against.

by rsfern 2y ago

Gabriel54 2y ago

1. There are thousands of universities in the US that are neither R1/R2 nor "historically minority serving". What about those universities? 2. Where did you get the idea that outreach is not still an important priority? The issue is what is euphemistically called "under-represented demographics" which we understand excludes many Americans on the basis of their race.

legolas2412 2y ago

> It’s not like subpar research is ubiquitously getting funded over better research with lower “broader impacts” scores. Yeah I don't buy that. I've seen equity directives in universities explicitly asking to hire only underrepresented minorities, or give one third of a candidate's score based on race and gender characteristics (the other two thirds were resume and interview). I've heard equity hiring quotas given to execs in tech industry. I've heard of pressure to hire/promote minorities. I've seen what affirmative action did to University admissions. The admissions office reduced Asian Americans score on "likeability". As a result they needed a higher sat score than any other group for admissions. The hiring office essentially said that they did not like Asians. So sorry, I do not buy the argument that equity initiatives just choose a minority representation from equally qualified samples. Because from what you say, Asian americans wouldn't have been discriminated against.